S.Brahmaputhran vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 9333 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

 FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                  Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1938 OF 2013

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 134/2012 DATED 06-06-2013
OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
                  CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 91/2010 DATED 27-04-2012
    OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, KOLLAM


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:

             S.BRAHMAPUTHRAN
             SON OF REGHUNATHAN, LEKSHMI VIHAR,
             OLAYIL, KOLLAM-691009.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.ALAN PAPALI
             SHRI.J.VIMAL

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

     2       SHOBHA THOMAS
             OTTAKKAL HOUSE, THEVALLY P.O.-691009,
             KOLLAM.

             R1 BY SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
             R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN
             R2 BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1938 OF 2013
                              -2-




                       ORDER

The revision petitioner is the complainant in

S.T.No. 91 of 2010 on the files of the trial court. The

accused was acquitted by the trial court in the said case

under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after the

trial of the case, against which appeal was filed by the

revision petitioner herein before the Sessions Court

concerned. As per the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.134

of 2012, the Sessions Court confirmed the judgment

and order passed by the trial court acquitting the

accused, against which this revision petition has been

filed.

2. Heard.

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1938 OF 2013

3. The Division Bench of this Court in Omana

Jose v. State of Kerala [2014 (2) KLT 504] held that

the complainant in a case under S.138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act cannot challenge the order

of acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso

to S.372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his

remedy is only to file an appeal to the High Court with

special leave under S.378(4) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. In view of the above legal position, the

appeal filed by the revision petitioner herein before the

Sessions Court under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.

cannot be sustained and consequently, the judgment in

the appeal stands set aside.

In the result, this criminal revision petition stands

disposed of as above.

I make it clear that I have not passed any order on

merits. I further make it clear that this order will not Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1938 OF 2013

stand in the way of the revision petitioner in resorting

to any other remedy available to the revision petitioner

to challenge the judgment and the order of acquittal in

accordance with law.

Sd/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

JUDGE Nkr/19.03.2021